Headlines

Mediaite

Krauthammer: Rick Scott’s Medicaid decision was “honorable”

There has been a recent trend of Republican governors embracing the Medicaid expansion provision of the Affordable Care Act, and this week Florida governor Rick Scott became the latest to jump on the bandwagon. On Fox News earlier today, Bret Baier held a panel discussion on this shift, with Charles Krauthammer saying that while the health care law is insolvent and terrible, it is the law of the land, and said that Scott and his fellow governors are making an “honorable” decision for embracing the Medicaid expansion. …

The Weekly Standard‘s Steve Hayes said it’s easy to “understand the rationale” of why Republican governors are embracing parts of the health care law, but found it “particularly galling” that Scott, who “made his career opposing Obamacare” and has consistently been one of its most ardent opponents, pulled a surprising 180 this week. Hayes called Scott’s shift a politically “cowardly” decision. …

Krauthammer then defended Scott’s actions as “honorable” after his long opposition to the health care law, in spite of personally believing the Medicaid provision in the law is too expansive, and clarified that despite his defense he still believes it to be “insolvent” and “a terrible idea.” Powers said that at least Scott is accepting reality and not just pretending that poor people will “disappear” and solve the problem.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

with Charles Krauthammer saying that while the health care law is insolvent and terrible, it is the law of the land, and said that Scott and his fellow governors are making an “honorable” decision for embracing the Medicaid expansion.

The Kraut is wrong, as usual. I don’t know why anyone bothers listening to this guy about anything. The only times he’s ever correct are 18 – 36 months after everyone else has already understood it, and even then Kraut doesn’t really get it.

The Kraut is wrong, as usual. I don’t know why anyone bothers listening to this guy about anything. The only times he’s ever correct are 18 – 36 months after everyone else has already understood it, and even then Kraut doesn’t really get it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 22, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Please, that’s ridiculous (not to mention wrong).

The bottom line here is that if you’re going to criticize the law, say it’s bad policy and too costly, you don’t then turn around and embrace one particular provision of it.

All you purists think it’s an easy sell to tell the citizens of Florida that money being taken from their paycheck will be going directly to people living in other states, and that they will get none of that portion back. How does Gov. Scott deny 1 million poor people in Florida access to Medicaid that will 90% be paid by someone else. Floridians do not get a refund of Federal tax if they opt out. If they don’t take the 90% deal, someone else will. The coercion written into the law is the problem, not Gov. Scott ultimately deciding he doesn’t want to make his citizens suffer health care access in relation to other states, all the while they are paying the bill in those other states. His realizing that isn’t the problem.

All you purists think it’s an easy sell to tell the citizens of Florida that money being taken from their paycheck will be going directly to people living in other states, and that they will get none of that portion back. How does Gov. Scott deny 1 million poor people in Florida access to Medicaid that will 90% be paid by someone else. Floridians do not get a refund of Federal tax if they opt out. If they don’t take the 90% deal, someone else will. The coercion written into the law is the problem, not Gov. Scott ultimately deciding he doesn’t want to make his citizens suffer health care access in relation to other states, all the while they are paying the bill in those other states. His realizing that isn’t the problem.

Norbitz on February 22, 2013 at 9:49 AM

You lost me at “All you purists…”

If desiring to follow the constitution as the framers intended makes me a purist, I plead guilty to puritanism in the first degree.

IMHO the honorable thing to do would be to reject the expansion and do everything in your power to help a bad, insolvent program fail as it deserves to do, not add to the mess by taking the cheap way and grabbing the money.
A principle is not a principle if it’s sacrificed on the altar of re-election.

Since state income and property taxes are deductible at the feral level, you’re making the argument that all states should increase their state income and property taxes, since the ones that don’t just have their residents pay at the feral level for the ones that do have large state taxes. NY and Calif residents benefit the most from this.

What you said would have a kernel of truth if every dime to pay for this actually came from taxes. This country borrows over 40% of what it spends. It isn’t his current population that is being cheated if he doesn’t take the money. It is future generations that are being cheated by the borrowing. They have no say but will have to pay for the mess.

My guess is that Scott got bought off by the hospital chains. Part of ObamaCare provides that if you don’t take the Medicaid expansion, the amount of government reimbursements to hospitals in your state for uncompensated care is reduced. That’s a critical reason Kasich flipped on ObamaCare in Ohio. . .

This from a man who voted against Reagan twice and was actually an integral part of the Mondale campaign. What a corrupt “Ruling Class” loser!

Mark Levin, a member of the Reagan administration, says that’s not true at all, that the one battle we won against Obamacare was when the Supreme Court ruled that states don’t have to accept the Medicaid expansion.

All you purists think it’s easy to just let guns be in the hands of ordinary, average Americans. But the government is trying to keep some guy somewhere from being shot so you need to give up your rights and your guns.

I hate you effin purists always screwing up the march toward national perfection.

All you purists think it’s an easy sell to tell the citizens of Florida that money being taken from their paycheck will be going directly to people living in other states, and that they will get none of that portion back. How does Gov. Scott deny 1 million poor people in Florida access to Medicaid that will 90% be paid by someone else. Floridians do not get a refund of Federal tax if they opt out. If they don’t take the 90% deal, someone else will. The coercion written into the law is the problem, not Gov. Scott ultimately deciding he doesn’t want to make his citizens suffer health care access in relation to other states, all the while they are paying the bill in those other states. His realizing that isn’t the problem.

Norbitz on February 22, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Sure…as Hayes said, it’s easy to ‘understand the rationale’. What is galling is to have someone talk up how detrimental the legislation is, then proceed to implement part of it. See the disconnect?

Dr. Kraut, I sometimes disagree with you, and this is one of them. Unlike most HotAirians, I have no use for purity, or vice versa. This is about a politician and his positioning to keep and cling on to power. Ever since the President won in ’12, Gov. Scott has become more and more amenable to the oppos agenda. His statements reflect that. Whether pub or dem, I detest pols who suddenly go against what they’ve been saying all the time, just to cling on to power. Thats not honorable. Its cowardice and deplorable. And thats my 2 cents.

I told you guys that if you elected Willard – ObamaCare would not be repealed. Look at what’s happening … all the establishment Governors are FLOCKING to O-Care. They love this sh*t … it does EVERYTHING they want – it pulls money from the people and sends it to THEM to decide how to spend it – and for what political purposes they’ll spend it on.